APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2008-12 > 1229122470
Subject: Re: [APG] those old source definitions again--oops
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:54:30 -0600
Oops. In my response to Debbie's message, one of her comments appears to be
my own (The paragraph starting with "Another." I'm hastening to correct
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] those old source definitions again
> should international sources always be listed in the bibliography by
country or by collection or by document.
Debbie, that's your choice. If you have set up your American sources by
geographic locale, it would seem logical to me to apply that across the
>Another fine point is to determine if the document is found locally or
nationaly and when thus determined, how to express that. Is the document
derived or original.
This kind of critical thinking is what impels us to apply critical thinking
to all aspects of the record. Once we get in the habit of that kind of
analysis, we seem to find all sorts of ways to "analyze" the record and the
>Should the source definition reflect the medium used (ie: manuscript) or
the method by which we viewed it (ie: emailed digital scan) or both in my
Both (EE 2.11).
Some of the above I'm grasping but most of the time it is difficult to mesh
all that into one logical source definition.
So much confusion, forgive me for my lack of confidence.
Like most other things in life, Debbie, with repetition it gets much easier.
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message